Girlfriend's pregnant...

leveller2911

marksoton wrote: »

Happy birthday, have some :bdaycake:

Cheers for that, nice cake too.

Jhoney_2

leveller2911 wrote: »

People are fed up to the back teeth of subsidising the !!!!less. Blame the Tories in the 1980's who were the ones who started giving teenage mums council houses.Then blame the Labour Government of the 1990's who handed out taxpayers money to the teenage mums like confetti.

Absolutely agree - but let's go find the fathers and make them pay for their offspring.

Do you really blame society for being !!!!!! off. Its my birthday today and my wife and children treated me to lunch.

Happy Birthday!:)

The young mum (23 yrs old now) sitting on the adjacent table with her 3 kids lives 4 doors down from us.She was texting on her new i-phone 6 , never worked a day in her life and neither has her boyfriend but they still get enough benefits to have lunch in a decent resturant and I-phone 6's.

We have no idea if benefits paid for these things or to the neglect of what they have prioritised this stuff, but I take your point.

Then we have the ones who work as least as possible to maximise benefits through Tax credits etc.

Agreed, bad policy and poor wage increases over the last 2 decades.

I'm sitting here typing this at the age of 47 in pain from arthritis in my fingers from working since the day I left school.

As did I, but sorry to hear you are in pain.

When/If I ever get to retire and I'm lucky enough to get my state pension the f*ckless in society who will have paid next to nothing into the system will still be looked after nicely with the Pension Credit or whatever it will be called in 2039....

I agree it's somewhat perverse, but it's the policies again.

I have the right to be !!!!ed off.

You have. but this is pure successive gov't deflection. They caused this and this gov't made a point of people going to work past the drawn curtains of the 'benefit culture' neighbours. They froze wages and smashed up our manufacturing industries and sold off services to their mates - e.g transport is still being heavily subsidized and is still broken but they get to keep huge profits for the shareholders and prices keep going up. They love that we focus on these minority of people without holding them to account and to push through their agenda/policies. All quite a separate debate as far as i'm concerned.

The saddest thing of all is we still have a society where a sizeable minority are quite happy to live off the backs of those who work and contribute.

The irony here is that the young lady in question is the one who is not seeking assistance. It's the OP on here saying what can she do? who can she go to for help? The answer to that is him.
I'm saying what can HE do? In my opinion, it's him, gf and extended immediate family who have the obligation first and foremost. Is that wrong?

Subsidised or not, he is working and should go and rent a room that he, the gf, and baby can live in together. Not abdicate or otherwise out-source his part in their situation.

As an aside, I would rather my taxes were used to home this young person who is about to have a baby, than for war or indeed to prop up young men impregnating women, yet working and living with their mothers, but that's by the by.

csgohan4

Or you could all vote for Labour and vote for limitless benefits and sharing of your wealth via taxes

missbiggles1

qwert_yuiop wrote: »

It's only slightly different. He may well have been referring to the above.

It's totally different - sorry you can't see that.

pjcox2005

It's a difficult one to calculate but a study from 2014, suggested that you had to be in the top 40% of earners in the UK to be a net contributor to the system (i.e. paying more tax than benefits received (incl state education, pension etc)).


Given the changes to reduce the amount of tax paid by lower earners I'd expect that percentage to have increased since then. So for all those complaining about having to pay for the baby, then I hope you are a high earner otherwise it's slightly hypocritical.

Guest101

missbiggles1 wrote: »

It's totally different - sorry you can't see that.

It's not different at all.


For one thing out of those 100 women, 10 might have sex 5 days a week, 25 once a week, 30 twice a week and 25 once a month......


If all 100 women had sex once a year, the statistic of 2% would be much much lower as the chances of that night being at the height of the cycle are low.


It's about averages. But I'm not really up for debating with you further. Your advice is misguided by a caveat on a box designed to remove liability from the provider.


But instead you're suggesting to people that there is a lower chance of getting pregnant. - dangerous advice.

Jhoney_2

csgohan4 wrote: »

Or you could all vote for Labour and vote for limitless benefits and sharing of your wealth via taxes

Not sure if this somehow referred to my last post, but I was wondering if anyone knows if,when and how much of a tax cut we should expect as a result of the cuts to benefits? I recall the millionaires getting one or two over the last 5 years or so. That's just as much the definition of a handout and a slap in the face as any benefit scrounger in my book - but GO always takes care of his own.

I did agree with the Business rates cut, but GO cannot force the employers to hire more people (or pay them more than minimum wage) - he can only hope, so although unemployment is down, there is no measure of value added by a blanket cut for all businesses. We are probably still propping up a lot of those workers with WTC etc at the other end too. I may well be wrong, just a view.

We have never been in a position to choose where our taxes go so the sharing of our wealth via taxes as now, has always been the case.

Benefits have never been 'limitless', but eligibility has certainly been very lax and as unemployment goes up the coffers go down. It's a numbers game which is constantly shifting.

If you don't make anything, you don't make anything, imv.

That's the reality, but these goldfish politicians of whatever party just keep betting the same way:- the financial sector and services. It will not succeed, but maybe it's too late to fix anyway.

moneyistooshorttomention

pjcox2005 wrote: »

It's a difficult one to calculate but a study from 2014, suggested that you had to be in the top 40% of earners in the UK to be a net contributor to the system (i.e. paying more tax than benefits received (incl state education, pension etc)).


Given the changes to reduce the amount of tax paid by lower earners I'd expect that percentage to have increased since then. So for all those complaining about having to pay for the baby, then I hope you are a high earner otherwise it's slightly hypocritical.

I've read that before now and thought "On the face of it - that would make me a 'net taker' - as I've always been on a poor salary - darn it". I'm never quite sure on that though - as they don't say what the position is for different categories of people. Obviously, they will include the standard family of mum, dad, 2 kids as being net takers unless they are well-paid (and...yes...I don't see any difference between paying for other peoples child benefit to paying for other people claiming ALL their income from the State courtesy of having had children).

But I don't know whether poorly-paid people who have always been in full-time employment (apart from involuntary spells of unemployment) and have never had children are "net takers", "net givers" or "paying their way" - so I've never been able to figure out where I personally stand in that equation. I hope I'm in the "paying my way" category and not either a "net taker" or a "net giver" - but have no way of knowing. I assume I'm a "net giver" - darn it - because of being childless, so well entitled to complain.

missbiggles1

Guest101 wrote: »

It's not different at all.


For one thing out of those 100 women, 10 might have sex 5 days a week, 25 once a week, 30 twice a week and 25 once a month......


If all 100 women had sex once a year, the statistic of 2% would be much much lower as the chances of that night being at the height of the cycle are low.


It's about averages. But I'm not really up for debating with you further. Your advice is misguided by a caveat on a box designed to remove liability from the provider.


But instead you're suggesting to people that there is a lower chance of getting pregnant. - dangerous advice.

When in hole - stop digging.:D

Given accurate information is rarely dangerous - scaremongering is.

How can we expect young people to use contraception rigorously if older people tell them that they might as well not bother and that, for every 100 times they have sex using a condom they're likely to get pregnant twice? Hardly surprising that so many of them don't bother if they think it's so unreliable.

Guest101

If you pay tax then you'repaying 'your way', that's the tax rate that's been set.

Even if you claim more than you pay.

My opinion of course.